We're running a three node cluster with the following discovery settings:
discovery.zen.minimum_master_nodes: 2
discovery.zen.ping.multicast.enabled: false
discovery.zen.ping.unicast.hosts: <all three ip's, on each system's config>
Yesterday we had a networking blip that affected at least one of the nodes.
After the networking issue resolved node 1 and 2 were connected to each
other and in a green cluster state. Node 3 was connected to node 2 and
reporting 2 nodes in the cluster and in a yellow state. Querying the nodes
on 1 & 2 showed 1 & 2 were members. On 3 it was reporting 2 & 3 were
members. 1 cluster health was reporting unallocated shards. 3 was reporting
200 status for the node.
We restarted the service on 3 and it rejoined the cluster properly.
Does this scenario sound familiar to anyone? How is it that 1 & 2 and 2 & 3
would join each other separately? Is there any way to avoid this situation?
I'm currently trying an alternative approach to the default discovery
mechanism, assessing zookeeper and the corresponding
pluginhttps://github.com/sonian/elasticsearch-zookeeper with
our cluster (as suggested in that ticket), which so far has proved
successful in avoiding this situation.
We're running a three node cluster with the following discovery settings:
discovery.zen.minimum_master_nodes: 2
discovery.zen.ping.multicast.enabled: false
discovery.zen.ping.unicast.hosts: <all three ip's, on each system's config>
Yesterday we had a networking blip that affected at least one of the
nodes. After the networking issue resolved node 1 and 2 were connected to
each other and in a green cluster state. Node 3 was connected to node 2 and
reporting 2 nodes in the cluster and in a yellow state. Querying the nodes
on 1 & 2 showed 1 & 2 were members. On 3 it was reporting 2 & 3 were
members. 1 cluster health was reporting unallocated shards. 3 was reporting
200 status for the node.
We restarted the service on 3 and it rejoined the cluster properly.
Does this scenario sound familiar to anyone? How is it that 1 & 2 and 2 &
3 would join each other separately? Is there any way to avoid this
situation?
I'm currently trying an alternative approach to the default discovery
mechanism, assessing zookeeper and the corresponding pluginhttps://github.com/sonian/elasticsearch-zookeeper with
our cluster (as suggested in that ticket), which so far has proved
successful in avoiding this situation.
We're running a three node cluster with the following discovery settings:
discovery.zen.minimum_master_nodes: 2
discovery.zen.ping.multicast.enabled: false
discovery.zen.ping.unicast.hosts: <all three ip's, on each system's
config>
Yesterday we had a networking blip that affected at least one of the
nodes. After the networking issue resolved node 1 and 2 were connected to
each other and in a green cluster state. Node 3 was connected to node 2 and
reporting 2 nodes in the cluster and in a yellow state. Querying the nodes
on 1 & 2 showed 1 & 2 were members. On 3 it was reporting 2 & 3 were
members. 1 cluster health was reporting unallocated shards. 3 was reporting
200 status for the node.
We restarted the service on 3 and it rejoined the cluster properly.
Does this scenario sound familiar to anyone? How is it that 1 & 2 and 2 &
3 would join each other separately? Is there any way to avoid this
situation?
Which version of elasticsearch are you running? I found the logs to not be
too helpful when it comes to having some insights into the master election
process.
One useful tool is the 'lifecycle' command of this script:
I'm currently trying an alternative approach to the default discovery
mechanism, assessing zookeeper and the corresponding pluginhttps://github.com/sonian/elasticsearch-zookeeper with
our cluster (as suggested in that ticket), which so far has proved
successful in avoiding this situation.
We're running a three node cluster with the following discovery settings:
discovery.zen.minimum_master_nodes: 2
discovery.zen.ping.multicast.enabled: false
discovery.zen.ping.unicast.hosts: <all three ip's, on each system's
config>
Yesterday we had a networking blip that affected at least one of the
nodes. After the networking issue resolved node 1 and 2 were connected to
each other and in a green cluster state. Node 3 was connected to node 2 and
reporting 2 nodes in the cluster and in a yellow state. Querying the nodes
on 1 & 2 showed 1 & 2 were members. On 3 it was reporting 2 & 3 were
members. 1 cluster health was reporting unallocated shards. 3 was reporting
200 status for the node.
We restarted the service on 3 and it rejoined the cluster properly.
Does this scenario sound familiar to anyone? How is it that 1 & 2 and 2
& 3 would join each other separately? Is there any way to avoid this
situation?
Thanks for pointing out es2unix. This looks handy.
Dave
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Ivan Brusic ivan@brusic.com wrote:
Which version of elasticsearch are you running? I found the logs to not be
too helpful when it comes to having some insights into the master election
process.
I'm currently trying an alternative approach to the default discovery
mechanism, assessing zookeeper and the corresponding pluginhttps://github.com/sonian/elasticsearch-zookeeper with
our cluster (as suggested in that ticket), which so far has proved
successful in avoiding this situation.
We're running a three node cluster with the following discovery
settings:
discovery.zen.minimum_master_nodes: 2
discovery.zen.ping.multicast.enabled: false
discovery.zen.ping.unicast.hosts: <all three ip's, on each system's
config>
Yesterday we had a networking blip that affected at least one of the
nodes. After the networking issue resolved node 1 and 2 were connected to
each other and in a green cluster state. Node 3 was connected to node 2 and
reporting 2 nodes in the cluster and in a yellow state. Querying the nodes
on 1 & 2 showed 1 & 2 were members. On 3 it was reporting 2 & 3 were
members. 1 cluster health was reporting unallocated shards. 3 was reporting
200 status for the node.
We restarted the service on 3 and it rejoined the cluster properly.
Does this scenario sound familiar to anyone? How is it that 1 & 2 and 2
& 3 would join each other separately? Is there any way to avoid this
situation?
Apache, Apache Lucene, Apache Hadoop, Hadoop, HDFS and the yellow elephant
logo are trademarks of the
Apache Software Foundation
in the United States and/or other countries.